China, Tibet and the real-politick

Until 1750 civil governors could be appointed from the Tibetan ruling class or from China. From 1750 the governor was always Chinese. This lasted until the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1911.

The Qing Dynasty’s death rattle took about 20 years and in that time China lost much of its power. Helped not a little by Britain peddling opium. Tibet now sensed that China was at an end and its grip on power was finished. The power of the Monks under the Da Lai la Ma, increased.

1911 to 1949 were very turbulent years in China. Looking inward and immersed in its own internal conflict, China lost control of the outlying provinces, of which Tibet was one. Then in 1949 Mao emerged the victor and seized power.

Mao had fought the Japanese (unlike Chiang ki-shek, who lost the support and respect of the people because of this) and had learned the hard way that China could not afford to be divided if it were to be powerful. Being raped by another nation is not pleasant and tends to stick in the mind, somewhat. One of Mao’s first priorities was to bring the outlying provinces, over which China had an historical claim, back into the fold. Tibet was one of those provinces.

It is interesting and informative to note that Mao did not try to extend his reach any further. He had a powerful and experienced army at his command. The West had been weakened by World War II. He could have easily taken many small countries around those outlying provinces. However, he chose only those over which China had a historical claim. Thus not provoking Russia, Britain and America. Although weakened, they were still very powerful.

To understand that strategy, it is best to read Sun Tzu, The Art of War, which counsels a ruler not to extend his (her) lines and concentrate on consolidating power. For the ruler who extends his (her) lines weakens the state and inevitably the extended lines will be cut off, unless they are very, very strong. Let your mind mull over the current actions of America, which is running the around world like a hormonal adolescent, in contrast to the actions of China. Hong Kong was a waiting game for China. And Taiwan? What is 50, 100, 200 years out of 5,000?

Note also, that China took a stand in Vietnam and Korea, but did not push through. The West saw it as the advance of communism. China saw it as the invasion by the West.

Xiaosui, when I first started to talk about Tibet from my eyes, was surprised. For her it was clear-cut. Tibet had always been a part of China. The Monks were a parasitic lot who oppressed the people. She looked around to find a word that described the people of Tibet at that time. The word she found was “helot”. From the ODE - a member of a class of serfs in ancient Sparta, intermediate in status between slaves and citizens. She talks of atrocities being committed on the “helot” class in Tibet by their own ruling class.

China, through its eyes, did not invade, it liberated an oppressed people. Indeed, the average Tibetan welcomed the Red Army at first. However, the Red Army did not understand the close nexus between the Tibetan People and their religion. The Tibetans were no doubt pleased to see the end of any oppression, but did not want to see the end of their culture both secular and religious.

Xiaosui agrees with this; that the culture of Tibet should have been and should be preserved. However, as she points out, that is not the way of the world. That is not real-politick.

The strong, inevitably dominate the weak, which equally inevitably disappear over time.